Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status

"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Wed, 28 October 2020 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69FCC3A07D3; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=lAm7zET3; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=MlsHy7HA
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VULvyAInSQqx; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B64A53A07AE; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:13:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=24658; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1603901589; x=1605111189; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=H0+pVXgIZiCRY8KEeQSWNzD/6HoQrGdTydkFdFKSm5A=; b=lAm7zET3QrqcaCCLxjn2vnqpV7ubxGgkPlS+44tFtNYXVzLLM6Zk64tM aWXL0NEWWH994XUgr6Yfglh/eOOGxcv6d52VhNeNJr5C/zEn6fTtR/VP/ ds/aHr8cNLZ8xfbAsshJ3hBIh1X8CxdOXImoUPOQVjul4yyr9tMRf1egr 0=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AfeS40R1hDLudZ43osmDT+zVfbzU7u7jyIg8e44?= =?us-ascii?q?YmjLQLaKm44pD+JxWGuadiiVbIWcPQ7PcXw+bVsqW1X2sG7N7BtX0Za5VDWl?= =?us-ascii?q?cDjtlehA0vBsOJSCiZZP7nZiA3BoJOAVli+XzoPk1cGcK4bFrX8TW+6DcIEU?= =?us-ascii?q?D5Mgx4bu3+Bo/ViZGx0Oa/s53eaglFnnyze7R3eR63tg7W8MIRhNhv?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A1CAB3l5lf/5pdJa1GGh4BAQsSDII?= =?us-ascii?q?EC4EjL1EHcFkvLYQ9g0kDjUeBAokOjQuBX4EugSUDVQsBAQENAQEjCgIEAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?ESgIXgW4CJTYHDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FYQyFcgEBAQECARIRChMBATc?= =?us-ascii?q?BCwQCAQYCDgMEAQEBJwMCAgIfERQJCAEBBAENBQgagwWBfk0DDiABDj+RCpB?= =?us-ascii?q?qAoE7iGh2gTKDBAEBBYE3AoNjDQuCEAMGgTiCcoJgTkKBBoVRG4FBP4ERQ4I?= =?us-ascii?q?YNT6CGkIBAQIBFoEoICsJgmEzgiyLcIdphxWLSUCOW4FrVAqCa4kHi3pvhTK?= =?us-ascii?q?DF4oOjjWGBpI3gQqBfoh5gm2MS4FdhC8CBAIEBQIOAQEFgVsDMBKBLw8HcBW?= =?us-ascii?q?DJFAXAg2OHwwXg06FFIVEdAI2AgYBCQEBAwl8jGxgAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.77,427,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217";a="592655313"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 28 Oct 2020 16:13:08 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (xch-rcd-002.cisco.com [173.37.102.12]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09SGD7hs029294 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:13:08 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) by XCH-RCD-002.cisco.com (173.37.102.12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:13:07 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-001.cisco.com (173.37.227.246) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:13:07 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:13:07 -0500
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=dVTfi5qExI2+N1HPg/C/tY4PC8l+qvl64YCXM4sI2AXwdclGG+OpCl0FuXL6VqbfZoPYWtnXX2hsDaSPW4aQrfAVhSaBsFMthbfyGWIsFIjjfAMvLID42yiFjCDmp2ahifB5Bb6I5Vfe2X2CwTIY6C0s7LLBPuRLyedUatMzLt6AFtomHCcL9IS9pdM710N9KENVE1dai4CsnoWCuMWg7SE1ZHmX8QD7/MDdhMD8iixkMISe3JjZfcExSqCO8T9VPhVJWoK7hFPNuzKC0eSOTIwU6kXPfDOgSVRRprhkxYdzgZZ7M+7s2mTd/BqIb7wAnLUEYazuXp67FVloJTsMzA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=H0+pVXgIZiCRY8KEeQSWNzD/6HoQrGdTydkFdFKSm5A=; b=jeR6i4fOJ/Xvl+EZS8o9MqMx1wzwx9Nv+iPkbSi/0hWDrGpwKRVrV8p+B1ynWtF1iUxhpS8h/AWTXVeNB1TfKDb7HUGRWLyUkDxVjfoEa1M7wj3bsaLXXVCF6ZMDIdeWzLO++GkwW6HUjkrH/sb6qXSUdvceJf2vNVIpzGhY+Fmov3FOAJplizISckRO3b5s1HB6oHRPxpdxfCBgC0JyvzQTiClZkNB5TPVWDMTZioxwYPI6yYilB27KsZswhyixW+iZajI+zfzi0k5c6KPh4iblA3B9NFL3cPovtTV7QJBP0ptdAKXlE/KIFEZ8ssve+3pkJ8exeJCRJywa4iZjng==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=H0+pVXgIZiCRY8KEeQSWNzD/6HoQrGdTydkFdFKSm5A=; b=MlsHy7HAbt+5iohxj2ZEOre8SQ1Fuytv2ZAHLSv/gnkHsTsMRIntRxRrcz8Fl+xwA4R822Ffq/hILEbejKPjPoyrvoTjF5AHW8kRufiULGlhnMwHRS/BKd35voOoGnbeFoy9L/rjnJDHCvB/GDQ5hZMpvjGL9XxfRdOdNxQpEmQ=
Received: from CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:903:2a::23) by CY4PR1101MB2152.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:910:23::19) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3477.24; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:13:05 +0000
Received: from CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b9ef:c652:dd7c:318]) by CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::b9ef:c652:dd7c:318%8]) with mapi id 15.20.3477.028; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:13:05 +0000
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: "roll-chairs@ietf.org" <roll-chairs@ietf.org>, "Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks" <roll@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Deprecating DCO status
Thread-Index: AdatCZyw7r2+jZrvQAKux3tM4YDw1wAHlCWAAASKdrAAANO5gAABpTEg
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:12:44 +0000
Deferred-Delivery: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:12:22 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR11MB13520AEA96C93D0F3129FED2D8170@CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CY4PR11MB13521CF8420BF542D94557F4D8170@CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAO0Djp3Fo7u-iFgNxYKA2264vNXOziP9-WkGxGvng28pbohpmA@mail.gmail.com> <CY4PR11MB135272610279D3EE5D5ED255D8170@CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMMESswcVq20TWe89rLzqWeFM4U_FJH9Z2WpWq_j2M-FWCZQ6g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMESswcVq20TWe89rLzqWeFM4U_FJH9Z2WpWq_j2M-FWCZQ6g@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;gmail.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2a01:cb1d:4ec:2200:b05d:2223:f809:90c3]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f725ac3f-1ff8-409b-a8e3-08d87b5c5a5b
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: CY4PR1101MB2152:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CY4PR1101MB2152544C4F5EB2B1463E34EAD8170@CY4PR1101MB2152.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:1091;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: XAx5ISdRRzddIPeE2P3fIS6plOIaeXRdLH0Bpi6Qm0mD7hsb7/AlxaUhOGQvNgAIsguCBIGdto4q9pqDGrLqafAflVlYtflQKA1gqVF6IODxUexB2N+Ile2NkJZYoUovC0wYYHXpf+2rsyRfKZrxc+rZ9SlZOShjWYLTnB47uIq/8I+Xnoop7kgXs4lAW/KvRoZhD2Q7eU2g7u8nMreCXVWXlDfVkj4P9zj2PefkPFX2UZaxv5GG8Mvu6Kn062zryTPwEDp7KlFWCuPGGb//I+xXAYZJEAxPB6ZkyaPpLecy+s8ogSFtTzBcZXoHdJzGcp6cVpJirs9IQLC+E8WmdpB9j1oQ4C3HMVMEVW1sMYwuNMVj4DpDFhWUj7gdFLH22sUIfBejWLHmliqChfytQQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(66446008)(7116003)(33656002)(83380400001)(53546011)(110136005)(2906002)(55016002)(3480700007)(66556008)(8676002)(966005)(186003)(8936002)(166002)(76116006)(5660300002)(71200400001)(4326008)(7696005)(86362001)(66946007)(316002)(66476007)(6666004)(64756008)(6506007)(54906003)(478600001)(52536014)(9686003)(16799955002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: dTFYPOhrbWpAk4wcPCIoxMBf1Kp3K8HlmQBgmPJoSN8JWSKjU8XZJ7sn6osSblUTOTeYLA9BpMHVkk4OU5NPahGVMGmN1krRcSaX/BkRbpgeEMbqMsZmDGlb+xO0fNfvduV4oyr3PHjYn4DKMtOZ7RH9/qrEMicF/gqT3tWLHQYieHc38xQoaMWwCEjcpe5f2e3Uh/EVH+rpRrwKyX4sMtIliM8RvSt4GZY5YWxOjuLpRohbhnpjk2Znkp5Go+GcXas7Sj5XdBOR0phznSf9VMegJtKkBle9jqeFj0xF7NY9zi2AKOgO+f3ooG0B86Sexu0QUg0dgr1YpfrA+XI76NL0T/c/zLKOtdQndPVeK+UQ4VbCYTHUpJVhG/wzA8+WO1XV4SjeKWHiXplJf4GEhgE9BQaBpS2ZRHnYYG/mGuqZ42OvD8uIpgq6o/RJ7bzKOojRCB/gmoUVyqG79+8kSRBSatP6wBYnXdP/Kiq6Mv8ztWWMnSfmBpWeNUhVohKZPsH3OKCvARGvu9Enf6Tw2Q5iBFF3+KTRQf7RC4gtqWCevg5ppVri82aDnhBoDHSYe/Ew/hoc9Fq4fxOowBsCDzp9jzCo+XrNruXG2/YRxEJiaFyskwpNNqdWvqbv5qq0c4wSVzmqFLiF8RhOxXhaFqXl7gFmd6bnfYFdV6mxHFNUz2kh8x/rej2G+4PS+AbPEtWejnzUGHoNmyVElw6+GA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY4PR11MB13520AEA96C93D0F3129FED2D8170CY4PR11MB1352namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CY4PR11MB1352.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: f725ac3f-1ff8-409b-a8e3-08d87b5c5a5b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 28 Oct 2020 16:13:05.5019 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ULf25vlgenLUWxCyuzM/LQyd0E1py7d/PXzqbU6Iz229IBEG0N9eyd/ZuTF4HxSi05eyLfLA4F48VxrrO9+hEQ==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR1101MB2152
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.12, xch-rcd-002.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/roll/cEvJbgHa3SRHJu6YCXLenTbOzOg>
Subject: Re: [Roll] Deprecating DCO status
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/roll/>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 16:13:12 -0000

Hello Alvaro

I disagree, the code 1 is added by DCO. Unaware leaves modifies the format and creates the registry since neither RPL nor DCO did.

This appears to be the simple thing to do. The more complex / cleaner thing to do would be that unaware leaves comes first  and creates the registry as of ow but without the value of 1. Then DCO adds a IANA entry that adds the value of 1. That’s a bit more IANA work.

In any fashion DCO needs to indicate that this is a rejection code, I’ll answer to Rahul on that.

Keep safe!

Pascal



From: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>
Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2020 16:17
To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com>om>; Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: roll-chairs@ietf.org; Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: Deprecating DCO status


Hi!

The last part (“This specification adds…”) is not correct, as unaware-leaves is the one defining the value.  Maybe “This specification uses…” would be more appropriate.


Rahul:  Please don’t submit anything yet.  Because IANA already created the registry (from the efficient-npdao draft), I want to check with them what is the right thing to do: if we just delete the registry, or if we need to leave it and deprecate it somehow.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On October 28, 2020 at 11:06:39 AM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) (pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>) wrote:
Hello Rahul

I believe that you need to indicate that the status is a RPL Status and refer to section 6.5.1. of RPL " Format of the DAO-ACK Base Object". I'm sure Alvaro will propose an improvement but my knee jerk:

Before:

Status: Indicates the completion status. Section 12.5 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves] defines the status values. A value of 0 is defined as unqualified acceptance. A value of 1 is defined as "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

After:

Status: RPL Status indicating the completion. The RPL Status is defined in section 6.5.1. of [RFC 6550] and updated in
section 6.3 of [I-D.ietf-roll-unaware-leaves]. This specification adds the RPL rejection value ('E' flag set and 'A' flag not set) of 1, defined as "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".

Works?

Take care;

Pascal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:rahul.ietf@gmail.com>>
> Sent: mercredi 28 octobre 2020 13:43
> To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>>
> Cc: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.ietf@gmail.com>>; roll-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:roll-chairs@ietf.org>; Routing
> Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll@ietf.org<mailto:roll@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: Deprecating DCO status
>
> Hi Pascal, Alvaro,
>
> I am mostly clear on the changes required. Please find attached an HTML-diff
> for the suggested changes.
> The only concern for me was if we remove the registry where would the Status
> 1 indicating "No routing-entry for the indicated Target found".
> But I see that unaware-leaves has made an update to its IANA section to
> include this status. So it works.
> Thus, I am referencing unaware-leaves for Status values.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2020 at 14:44, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> <pthubert@cisco.com<mailto:pthubert@cisco.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rahul:
> >
> >
> >
> > Attracting your attention on the particular point below in Alvaro’s AD review
> of unaware leaves:
> >
> >
> >
> > > > So we should update the NPDAO draft and remove that entry shouldn't
> we?
> >
> > > > Note that NPDAO is already in missref because of this draft
> >
> > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C310
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Also, the specification of the DAO-ACK needs to be changed to at
> > > least make it
> >
> > > clear that the "DCO-ACK Status" field refers to the "RPL Status".
> >
> > >
> >
> > > About deprecating the registry... We should ask IANA what to do:
> > > they already
> >
> > > created the registry, but the efficient-npdao hasn't been published
> > > as an
> >
> > > RFC. I don't know if we just delete §6.2 or if we have to formally
> > > deprecate the
> >
> > > registry (possible in this document).
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Please ack to this to make sure we're in sync before asking IANA.
> >
> >
> >
> > The change Alvaro and I want to make in the efficient npdao draft is
> > that the DCO status is now of the same type as the RPL status in DAO
> > ACK, and should be specified as such in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#section
> > -4.3.4
> >
> > Which means that we do not need the registry that we ask for in
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-roll-efficient-npdao-18#page-17
> >
> >
> >
> > Do you agree?
> >
> >
> >
> > Keep safe!
> >
> >
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> >